Misrepresenting Darwin (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, September 14, 2009, 18:52 (5358 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, September 14, 2009, 19:28

This discussion began with George's statement that "life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."
> 
> This sets design against evolution as if they were mutually exclusive, and I've been arguing that the two theories are compatible. Darwin himself said so explicitly, and for this reason it is a misrepresentation of Darwin to associate his name (and "Darwinism") with atheism. The fact that many theists accept the basic theory of evolution should also make it self-evident that the two are compatible.-To quote Dawkins: "If we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it was possible---except, of course, that there'd then be nobody around to do the disbelieving!" Ernst Mayr took a similar approach at the Wistar Symposium in 1967 which showed that evolution by mutation alone could not occur in the time alloted: "We are comforted by knowing that evolution occurred". Res ipse loquitor. Since when do we allow simple observation skills from stopping us from thinking, questioning, and investigating? The findings of epigenetics and microRNA's guiding and driving evolution raises the issue of a guiding code over-riding the basic and more simple DNA/RNA transcription code. I still maintain that the 'complexer' it gets, the more mutations are needed in a finite amount of time. How lucky were we to be here?